H2020

Call FoF-05-2016

AM-motion

A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO INCREASING EUROPE’S VALUE PROPOSITION FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

TECHNOLOGIES AND CAPABILITIES

Grant Agreement No 723560

Standardisation report: gaps and procedures

Deliverable number: D3.4

Document Details

Due date of Deliverable M15

Lead Contractor for Deliverable: PRODINTEC

Dissemination Level: PU

Contributors:

TNO

EPMA

CECIMO

AIRBUS

SIEMENS

MATERIALISE

Ref. Ares(2018)670256 - 05/02/2018

Deliverable D3.2

Page 2 of 24

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4

2 Standardization framework .................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Standards developing organizations ....................................................................................................5

2.2 Cooperative relationships .....................................................................................................................8

2.3 Other standardization initiatives ........................................................................................................ 11

3 Review on existing international standards for AM ........................................................... 15

4 AM standardization gaps and barriers analysis ................................................................. 19

5 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ 22

6 Annex 1 ................................................................................................................................. 23

Deliverable D3.2

Page 3 of 24

Table of Abbreviations

3D Three-dimensional

AENOR Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification

AFNOR French Association of Normalization

AFRL Air Force Research Lab

AM Additive Manufacturing

AMF Additive Manufacturing File Format

AMSC Additive Manufacturing Standards Collaborative

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing Materials

AWS American Welding Society

BSI British Standards Institution

CEN European Committee for Standardization

CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

CMH-17 The Composites Handbook

DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (in English, the German Institute for Standardization)

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

EU European Union

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FP7 7 th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development

H2020 Horizon 2020 EU Research and Innovation Programme

IEEE Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers

ISO International Organization for Standardization

JWC Joint Working Group

MMPDS Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NADCAP National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

PSDO Partner Standards Development Organization

RTAM Rapid Technologies and Additive Manufacturing

SDO Standards Developing Organization

SIS Swedish Standards Institute

SME Society of Manufacturing Engineers

STAIR Standardization, Innovation and Research

STL Standard Triangle Language

TC Technical Committee

TC Technical Committee

UL Underwriters Laboratories

UNI Italian Organization for Standardization

US United States

US DoD United Stated Department of Defence

VDI The Association of German Engineers

WG Working Group

WP Work package

Deliverable D3.2

Page 4 of 24

1 Introduction

The present document constitutes Deliverable D3.2 in the framework of the AM-Motion project

“A strategic approach to increasing Europe’s value proposition for Additive Manufacturing

technologies and capabilities” (Project Acronym: AM-motion; Contract No.: 723560). This

document is the result of the activities performed within task T3.2 “Standardisation framework and

process”, within the framework of work package 3 (WP3), titled “Analysis of Non Technological

Aspects”.

Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, proliferated years ago because its

usefulness in building prototypes with only a few number of early applications in production of end

products like hearing aids and hip implants. Nowadays, additive manufacturing finds industrial

applications in several sectors, thanks to its potential for producing customized or improved

performance products derived from a high degree of design freedom that cannot be achieved by

the subtractive technologies, for saving costs or for shortening the supply chain by on-site

manufacturing. According to Wohler’s report,1 the size of AM worldwide market in 2016 was

estimated at a value of $6.023 billion. The use of AM for the production of parts for final products

has experienced significant growth in the last seven years. In fact, the market has grown by nearly

5.7 times over this period. AM expansion has been particularly relevant in the aerospace and the

medical industry. It is remarkable that these sectors require high reliability and are highly regulated

and sensitive-process ones, where the qualification of new processes and materials as well as the

certification of new designs can be time consuming, complex, and expensive.

Additive manufacturing technology standards are designed to ensure products, services and

systems are safe, reliable and consistent. They are intended to promote knowledge of the industry,

help stimulate research and encourage the implementation of the technology. Standards are

reference documents that represent a consensus among the players and that define voluntary

characteristics and rules in a specific industry. The concrete benchmarks they define are based on

the field’s collective knowledge, which can then be distilled and updated. In that way,

standardization is a key enabler for the large-scale introduction of any technology. Regarding AM

technologies, standardized practices are particularly important because:

- Standardized practices create conformity amongst the different organizations and

industries that use the technology. AM encompasses many processes and materials, and

the range of additive processes and materials can be confusing. Many of the system

manufacturers have created unique process names and materials designations to

differentiate themselves from their competitors, but many of the different systems actually

employ similar processes and materials. Fortunately, a standard system already exists for

grouping AM processes and materials and for categorizing them into families.

- AM differs from traditional manufacturing since it is much less time- and labour-intensive

by eliminating the need for tool production. This is possible because the parts are

1 Wohlers Report 2017. 3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry. Annual worldwide progress report. Wohlers Associates.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 5 of 24

manufactured directly from a digital file. STL, still the most applied “quasi-standard”2 data

format used in AM in the last three decades is a good example of a standard that has

greatly helped the development of the technology by providing an open and practical data

exchange format for model data. The new AMF file, which was introduced as official

standard in 2011, was developed to better meets the current needs of additive

manufacturing technology without the limitations of STL.

- Parts produced by these technologies have properties that can be quite different from

conventional wrought or cast metals. AM is a sensitive process in which every “pixel” of

the part is produced individually and where many parameters can influence the quality.

This has proven to be a barrier to widespread qualification of the technology in critical

applications. The development of standards helps to address this issue.

- AM is capable of creating high-quality parts, but the technology and its application have

not matured to the point of guaranteeing quality over a prolonged production run. A lack of

process monitoring and control are partly the cause, and quality standards for materials,

processes and part testing can be the solution.

In parallel towards the moving to industrial production, some standards in the field of additive

manufacturing have been created, concerning their processes, terms and definitions, process

chains (hard- and software), test procedures, quality parameters, supply agreements and all kind

of fundamentals. Others are still under development or in the ballot and publication process within

international standard bodies. This deliverable aims to analyse the current AM standardization

framework to identify the gaps and existing barriers in general and specifically for particular

sectors.

2 Standardization framework

2.1 Standards developing organizations

Standardization is performed in committees and working groups within the Standards

Developing Organizations (SDOs) by consensus building of all participating delegates and experts.

Contributions are based on an interest in developing the standards, as no funding or compensation

is provided from SDOs.

At international level, there are three main SDOs whose Technical Committees deal with AM

standardisation issues:

ISO is the international global standardization organization. ISO Technical Committee

261 on Additive Manufacturing (ISO/TC 261) was formed in 2011 after a standardization

initiative from DIN, based on VDI Guidelines on “rapid technologies”. Its scope is the

“standardization in the field of AM concerning their processes, terms and definitions,

process chains (hard- and software), test procedures, quality parameters, supply

2 The STL format was launched by 3D systems, but there is no official standard created.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 6 of 24

agreements and all kind of fundamentals”.3

Membership is based on representation of different national standardization organization,

and each member organization may nominate experts for different workgroups. Current

membership consists of 22 participating countries and 8 observing organizations (Figure

1).

Figure 1. Map of ISO/TC 261 national participating (blue colour) and observing members (brown

colour). Source: ISO webpage

ISO/TC 261 is organized in five working groups:

- WG1 on Terminology, coordinated by Sweden.

- WG2 on Methods, Processes and Materials, coordinated by Germany.

- WG3 on Test Methods, coordinated by France.

- WG4 on Data Transfer and Design, coordinated by the UK.

- WG6 on Environment, health and safety, coordinated by Canada.

ISO/TC 261 has also Joint Working Groups with other committees in ISO such as “ISO/TC

261/JWG 5” with TC44 for aerospace applications (Joint ISO/TC 261 - ISO/TC 44/SC 14

WG: Additive manufacturing in aerospace applications). Moreover, ISO/TC 261 has

liaison agreements through it exchanges information with other ISO committees. Working

groups and Liaison Committees of ISO/TC 261 are collected in Annex 1.

ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) International is a globally recognized

leader in the development and delivery of voluntary consensus standards. ASTM

International Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies was organized

by industry in 2009 with the aim of developing consensus standards that will support the

adoption of AM across multiple industrial sectors.

3 Scope from ISO web page on December 2017. A modified scope was balloted at the plenary meeting in Stockholm on September 2017, but it has not yet been published.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 7 of 24

Membership is based on representation of different stakeholders (companies, universities,

research organizations, etc.). Participation in F42 does not require membership, but voting

rights do require it. F42 current membership is of 550+ individual members from more than

26 countries.

The committee is further divided in the following subcommittees and sub-subcommittees:

- F42.01 Test Methods.

- F42.04 Design.

- F42.05 Materials and processes.

- F42.05.01 Metals

- F42.05.02. Polymers

- F42.05.03 Medical applications

- F42.05.04 Aerospace applications

- F42.06 Environmental Health and Safety.

- F42.90 Executive.

- F42.90.01 Strategic planning

- F42.90.02 Awards

- F42.90.05 Research and innovation

- F42.91 Terminology.

- F.42.95 US TAG to ISO TC 261. The TAG develops the official U.S. response to

any standards balloted within ISO/TC 261. This coordination helps the two organizations

ensure that their standards activities are compatible and complementary (see also section

2.2).

At European level, the officially recognized European Standardization Organizations are

CEN (European Committee for Standardization) and CENELEC (European

Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization)4 non-profit organizations. CEN,

CENELEC and their national members and committees work jointly to develop and define

standards that are considered necessary by market actors and/or to support the

implementation of European legislation. After the publication of a European Standard,

each national standards body or committee is obliged to withdraw any national standard

that conflicts with the new European Standard. Hence, one European Standard becomes

the national standard in all the member countries of CEN and/or CENELEC.

Several CEN members participated in the FP7 European project SASAM5 (Support Action

for Standardization in Additive Manufacturing), which was supported by the European

4 https://www.cencenelec.eu/Pages/default.aspx

5 SASAM FP7 Project

Deliverable D3.2

Page 8 of 24

Union. The project ended in February 2014, and resulted in the delivery of a

Standardization Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing. The CEN-CENELEC Working

Group STAIR (Standardization, Innovation and Research) together with the project

SASAM decided to create the STAIR Additive Manufacturing Platform. A primary topic for

discussions within STAIR-AM was the potential/possible need for a European CEN/TC on

AM. Since this eventually was decided and the CEN Technical Committee on Additive

Manufacturing (CEN/TC 438) was founded in 2015, STAIR-AM was disbanded. The

actual work on European AM standards was taken over by CEN/TC438 (currently formed

by 33 national member bodies). Other more general discussions and activities connected

to AM standards was taken over by the AM-Platform.

2.2 Cooperative relationships

Worldwide cooperation is an important factor in developing standards for AM in an effective

way. Prior to any form of collaboration, standards for AM came from independent works of different

standardization bodies, resulting in duplicated efforts and standards. To rectify this situation, the

pioneering collaboration for joint standards development between the ASTM F42 and ISO/TC 261

committees on AM is especially relevant.

ASTM F42 and ISO/TC 261 signed the Partner Standards Development Organization

(PSDO) cooperation agreement in October 2011 (just few months after the creation of the ISO/TC

261 committee), with the aim of jointly develop international standards that serve the global

marketplace in the field of additive manufacturing. The agreement specifies development

approaches, as well as publication, copyright and commercial arrangements. Through this

agreement, joint standards can be created where none has existed. Also part of the partnership is

fast-tracking the adoption process of an ASTM International standard as an ISO final draft

standard, formal adoption of a published ISO standard by ASTM International, and maintenance of

published standards.

By summer 2013, a meeting was held to outline the structure for the development of joint

ISO/ASTM standards, and the following agreements have been reached on the guiding principles

to be followed and pursued by both organizations regarding the development of standards:

- One set of AM standards to be used all over the world.

- Common roadmap and organizational structure for AM standards.

- Use and build upon existing standards, modified for AM when necessary.

- Emphasis on joint standards development.

- For efficiency and effectiveness, ISO/TC 261 and ASTM F42 should begin the work

together and therefore in the same direction. Specifically, in the framework of the joint plan

for AM standards development, it was agreed that if one organization starts to work on a

new work item, it will invite the other organization to form a Joint Group. Only if the other

organization is not interested, the standard will be developed “alone”. Moreover, regular

ISO/TC 261 plenary meetings are held in parallel with ASTM F42 main committee

meetings.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 9 of 24

Furthermore, in July 2016, ASTM F42 and ISO/TC 261 committees have jointly updated and

approved a common organizational structure for AM standards that addresses the

perspectives and requirements from both ISO/TC 261 and ASTM F42 (figure 2). The intention of

this revised structure is to facilitate the development of modularized standards and to reduce the

risk for duplication of work, as well as the risk of contradiction between standards. The structure

sets three levels on which experts can develop industry standards:

- General standards (e.g. concepts, common requirements and guides, safety).

- Standards for broad category of materials (e.g. metal powders) or processes (e.g. powder

bed fusion).

- Specialized standards for a specific material (e.g. Aluminum alloy powders), process (e.g.

material extrusion with ABS) or application (e.g. aerospace, medical, automotive).

Figure 2. Common ISO/ASTM structure of AM standards

On the other hand, CEN has an agreement for technical cooperation with the ISO

organization. Thus, the Vienna Agreement was signed in 1991 with the aim of preventing

duplication of effort and reducing time when preparing standards. Specifically, an external liaison

was established between CEN/TC 438 and ISO/TC 261 on additive manufacturing. Moreover,

following the Vienna Agreement, CEN/TC 438 has adopted several ISO and ISO/ASTM standards

Deliverable D3.2

Page 10 of 24

that have now become European AM standards (EN ISO ASTM) and will replace any national

standards that may exist for these topics.

Apart from the cooperative relationships described above between the ISO, ASTM and CEN

AM committees, these SDOs have fostered the following relations with other relevant

organizations/initiatives towards the global cooperation on AM standardization:

America Makes - a U.S.-based innovation institute under Manufacturing USA and the

national accelerator for additive manufacturing and 3D printing - and ASTM International

signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in October 2013. The partnership

further solidified in 2017 when ASTM joined America Makes as a Silver Member. The work

is building more and stronger connections between researchers and the standards

community, with the goal of developing standards in tandem with the introduction of new

AM technologies and innovations. Key to this is the role of ASTM as it fills gaps identified

by the Standardization Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing, developed by the Additive

Manufacturing Standards Collaborative, where ASTM has a leadership role.

MOU signed in 2009 between ASTM and Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME),

establishing ASTM as the home for AM standards activities. The agreement also facilitates

the participation of SME’s Rapid Technologies and Additive Manufacturing (RTAM)

community in the standards development process. SME’s RTAM group is the world’s

largest community of technical experts focused around these advanced technologies.

ASTM and the 3MF Consortium signed a liaison agreement on June 2016 to explore

ways to collaborate and align standards and roadmaps to advance additive manufacturing

innovation and deliver state-of-the-art 3D printing technologies to the market. 3MF is an

industry association created to develop and promote a new full-fidelity file format for 3D

printing. The 3MF Consortium was formed to close the gap between the capabilities of

modern 3D printers and outdated file formats.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA) both separately holding workshops for additive manufacturing to accelerate

qualification and certification (Q&C) of the technology. Since 2015 FAA in conjunction with

AFRL (Air Force Research Lab) hold three workshops to bring aerospace community

together in order to discuss the status of Q&C. EASA similarly have hosted two workshops

so far in 2016 and 2017 to capture European activities. Standard organizations such as

ASTM International have been invited to provide status update on the standardization

activities and the feedback from the community directly goes to the future activities.

ASTM/ISO maintain formal discussions with other standardization initiatives such as the

ones from American Welding Society (AWS), Institute for Electrical and Electronics

Engineers (IEEE), SAE International, among others, regarding the coordination of

standards development. More details about the AM standardization activities of these

organizations are described in section 2.3.

CEN/TC 438 has established links with the European AM-Platform, the European

Welding Federation, and the H2020 European FoFAM project. Closer collaboration was

agreed with ASD-STAN, the European standardization body for aerospace.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 11 of 24

2.3 Other standardization initiatives

In addition to ISO, ASTM and CEN described in section 2.1, there are other relevant initiatives

in developing standards or fostering standardization for AM, which are presented in this section:

In Europe, there are several initiatives and national standardization committees on

additive manufacturing:

- AFNOR in France with its committee UNM 920 Fabrication additive.

- VDI in Germany with the GPL Committee on Production and logistics and,

especially, its Committee 105 Additive Manufacturing, as well as the DIN with its

NA 131-02-06 AA subcommittee Additive manufacturing in aerospace industry.

- AENOR in Spain with the committee AEN/CTN 116 including AM.

- SIS in Sweden with the committee SIS/TK 563.

- BSI in UK with the committee AMT/8.

- UNI in Italy with the committee UNI/CT 529.

National certification bodies develop their own standards, but as these initiatives are

collaborating at international level with ISO, CEN or ASTM, these efforts are used as input

for the international organizations.

Asia has also shown interest, and China, Japan, Korea and Singapore have

established mirror committees that align to ISO/TC 261.

America Makes, the US Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute, partnered with the

American National Standards Institute (ANSI), launched the Additive Manufacturing

Standards Collaborative (AMSC) in March 2016. AMSC is not developing standards or

specifications, but is a cross-sector coordinating body whose purpose is to help to

coordinate the development of industry-wide additive manufacturing standards and

specifications.

In February 2017, the AMSC published a standardization roadmap for additive

manufacturing. The roadmap identifies existing (as well as those in development)

standards and specifications, assesses gaps, and makes recommendations for priority

areas where there is perceived need for additional standardization. The AMSC also

published the AMSC Standards Landscape. The second phase of this collaboration was

kicked off in September 2017.6 Its major goals include expanding the discussion of

standards needs for polymers and other materials besides metals and engaging experts

from other industry sectors such as automotive, heavy equipment, energy, consumer

products, and tooling.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has formed some committees

to address additive manufacturing standardization: ASME Y14 Subcommittee 46 Product

Definition for Additive Manufacturing, ASME Y14 Subcommittee 41.1 on 3D Model Data

6 America Makes&ANSI 2 Kick-off Meeting for Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative

Deliverable D3.2

Page 12 of 24

Organization Schema, ASME Y14 Subcommittee 48 on Direction and Load Indicator

Requirement and ASME V&V Subcommittee 50, Verification and Validation of

Computational Modeling for Advanced Manufacturing. Other subcommittees such as

committee on Advanced Monitoring, Diagnostic, and Prognostic Technologies for

Manufacturing are under development.

The American Welding Society (AWS)¡Error! Marcador no definido. formed the D20 committee on

additive manufacturing in 2013 to develop a standard that would integrate requirements for

the additive manufacturing of metal components. The AWS D20 committee, which

consists of volunteers working in various AM-related fields, is in the process of completing

a draft of the AWS D20.1 standard “Specification for Fabrication of Metal Components

using Additive Manufacturing”. AWS D20.1 will be a comprehensive document that

identifies requirements related to AM component design, procedure qualification, machine

operator performance qualification, fabrication, and inspection. The scope of the draft

AWS D20.1 standard includes both powder bed fusion and directed energy deposition

metal AM processes.

The Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),¡Error! Marcador no definido. with

an active portfolio of nearly 1,300 standards and projects under development, is a leading

developer of industry standards. IEE is working in several projects related to additive

manufacturing to develop the necessary standards and regulations that could lead to

increased adoption of 3D printing. The Institute has already published the first part of a

multi-part standard regarding 3D medical modelling, visualization, data management,

simulation and printing. The published standard (IEE P3333.2.1) includes volume

rendering and surface rendering techniques for 3D reconstruction from two-dimensional

medical images. It also contains a texturing method of 3D medical data for the realistic

visualization. Other AM standards such as “Standard for Consumer 3D Printing: Overview

and Architecture” or “Standard for Test Access Architecture for Three-Dimensional

Stacked Integrated Circuits” are under development.

SAE International¡Error! Marcador no definido. is the world’s largest aerospace consensus

standards developing organization. SAE AMS AM, Additive Manufacturing, is a technical

committee created in 2015 in SAE’s Aerospace Materials Systems Group with the

responsibility to develop and maintain aerospace material and process specifications and

other SAE technical reports for additive manufacturing, including precursor materials,

additive processes, system requirements and post-build materials, pre-processing and

post-processing, nondestructive testing, and quality assurance. Recognizing the

contributions of other standards development organizations and related bodies, the

committee collaborate with organizations such as MMPDS, ASTM Committee F42 on

Additive Manufacturing Technologies, AWS D20, NADCAP Welding Task Group, America

Makes, CMH-17, and regulatory authorities such as FAA, EASA, US DoD, and NASA.

Examples of standards development/revision activities are: “AMS7003 - Laser Powder Bed

Fusion Process”, “AMS7002 - Process Requirements for Production of Ni-base 625 for

Production of Aerospace parts via Laser Powder Bed Additive Manufacturing”, “AMS7001 -

Ni Base 625 Super Alloy Powder for use in Laser Powder Bed Add Mfg machines”,

“AMS7000 - Additive Manufacture of Aerospace parts from Ni-base Super alloy 625 via the

Deliverable D3.2

Page 13 of 24

Laser Powder Bed Process”.

ASD-STAN, the European standardization body for aerospace.¡Error! Marcador no definido. ASD-

STAN publishes and sells online its own standards-library documents and is a distributor

for the independently produced SAE ITC E&A (former ASD standards) standards and

ASD-STAN related DIN EN standards. Over the years, ASD-STAN has established a lean

and streamlined standardisation process for European aerospace standards in agreement

with the European Committee for Standardization (CEN).

UL (Underwriters Laboratories) is an American safety consulting and certification

company headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. It maintains offices in 46 countries.

Established in 1894 as the Underwriters' Electrical Bureau (a bureau of the National Board

of Fire Underwriters), it was known throughout the 20th century as Underwriters

Laboratories and participated in the safety analysis of many of that century's new

technologies, most notably the public adoption of electricity and the drafting of safety

standards for electrical devices and components.

Regarding additive manufacturing, the UL recently published the “UL 3400 - Outline for

Investigation Additive Manufacturing Facility Safety Management.” UL also offers the

service Plastics for Additive Manufacturing Program (Blue Card Program), that enables

customers to have published data that facilitates pre-selection of 3D printed materials and

components for use in various end products. It defines the requirements necessary to

recognize plastics intended for 3D printing, proving the safety, integrity and usefulness of

materials. The UL Blue Card helps ensure that the component or end-product

manufacturer is using a tested and certified material, as well as being monitored at regular

intervals by an independent test laboratory.

Regarding industry, most of the companies contribute to AM standardization by bringing

their technical expertise, through delegating experts to committees and working groups at

national and international level. However, there are sectors, like the aerospace one,

where quality, reliability and safety are critical values. Therefore, aerospace companies

combine international standardization with the developing of internal standards. For

example, in the case of Airbus, the company works on the developing of a full set of

internal standards covering the complete additive manufacturing technology introduction in

the portfolio of the company (Table 1).

Also on a national level, there are special aerospace activities ongoing as, for example, in

Germany the DIN - Aerospace Standards Committee (NL) that is responsible for national

standards, and represents the German standardization interests at European (CEN) and

international (ISO) levels in the fields of e.g. materials. Its subcommittee NA 131-02-06 AA

Additive manufacturing in aerospace industry has recently published its “DIN 65122

standard: Aerospace series - Powder for additive manufacturing with powder bed process

- Technical delivery specification”. In addition, the VDI subcommittee FA 105.2 published

a draft guideline for the “Characterization of powder raw material” for beam melting of

metallic parts.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 14 of 24

Table 1. The case of Airbus - An example for the aerospace sector

Internal standardization process

Airbus’s standards initially will be only internally available, but will be discussed and agreed with existing Aeronautical Authorities (i.e. EASA and FAA) within the usual certification processes dedicated to the validation and qualification of new technologies. At a second stage, it is also foreseen that those internal standards will be also available for the selected supply chain and extended enterprise partners of Airbus.

Internal and international standardization alignment

Internal and international standardization alignment is key for Airbus in order to facilitate a wide spread of the AM technology across the global industrial network with the effect of an increasing competition amongst potential partners. The company participates in SAE as voting member for Additive Layer Manufacturing, aiming to accelerate the availability of international standards for the ALM technologies designated as the most promising ones for Airbus applications (AMS7000, AMS7001, AMS7002, AMS7003 and AMS7004). Airbus also planned to continue working within the SAE in the standardization of already internally deployed technologies as Titanium Powder Bed and Ultem 9085.

Powder bed fusion by laser beam - Titanium Fused deposition modelling – PEI “Ultem”

On the other hand, European projects represent another valuable instrument to foster

standardization activities. Normally it takes several years to create a standard, so its

development should start already several years before the industry is demanding them.

Hence, the push from the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission is to

stimulate standard development already in the research phases. It is recommended that all

research projects should pay attention to standardization in some way.7

Table 2 collects a list of relevant AM key EU funded projects under the FP7 and H2020

7 “How will standards facilitate new production systems for EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025”, JRC Foresight Study, 2014

Deliverable D3.2

Page 15 of 24

programs that have addressed standardization as a primary or secondary issue.

Table 2. EU projects with activity on AM standardization. Source: AM-motion AM e-database

3 Review on existing international standards for AM

The following table collects an overview of current standards relevant to AM and their status

(published or under development), following the common 3-level ISO/ASTM structure. Proposed

new standards have been also reviewed. In this sense, it should be mentioned that 15 newly-

proposed standards from ASTM International Committee F42 regarding metal powder bed fusion

(highlighted with an asterisk in Table 3) will help companies comply with a new checklist for

accreditation by the National Aerospace and Defence Contractors Accreditation Program

(NADCAP). The checklist is available through the Performance Review Institute.

PROJECT TITLE ACRONYM PROJECT LEADER

A productive, afforable and reliable solution for large scale manufacturing of metallic components by combining

laser-based ADPARADDISE

FUNDACIÓN TECNALIA

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Additive manufacturing aiming towards zero waste and efficient production of high-tech metal products AMAZE MTC CENTRE

Advanced digital technologies and virtual engineering for mini-factories ADDFACTOR SYNESIS

All-in-one manufacturing platform for system in package and micromechatronic systems NEXTFACTORY FRAUNHOFER IPA

An integrated business model for customer driven custom product supply chain IBUSTECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR

CHILDREN PRODUCTS AND LEISURE

Biomaterials and additive manufacturing: osteochondral scaffold innovation applied to osteoarthritis BAMOS UNIV. LAS PALMAS GRAN CANARIA

Computer aided technologies for additive manufacturing CAXMAN SINTEF

Developing a novel hybrid am approach which will offer unrivalled flexibility, part quality and productivity OPENHYBRID MTC CENTRE

Engineering compass ENCOMPASS MTC CENTRE

Flexible and on-demand manufacturing of customised spectacles by close-to-optician production clusters OPTICIAN2020 ASCAMM PRIVATE FOUNDATION

Flexible mini-factory for local and customized production in a container CASSAMOBILE FRAUNHOFER IPA

High precision micro production technologies HI-MICRO KU LEUVEN

Hybrid automated machine integrating concurrent manufacturing processes KRAKEN FUNDACION AITIIP

Increasing resource efficieny through implementation of ALM technology and bionic design in all stages of an

aircraft life cycleBIONICAIRCRAFT LASER ZENTRUM HANNOVER E.V

Industrial and regional valorization of FoF additive manufacturing projects FOFAM FUNDACION PRODINTEC

Large additive subtractive integrated modular machine LASIMMEUROPEAN FEDERATION FOR

WELDING JOINING AND CUTTING

Modular laser-based additive manufacturing platform for large scale industrial applications MAESTROCENTRE TECHNIQUE INDUSTRIEL

DE LA PLASTURGIE ET DES COMPOSITES

Resource efficient production route for rare earth magnets REPROMAGOBE OHNMACHT AND

BAUMGARTNER GMBH AND CO KG

Selective tape-laying for cost effective manufacturing of optimised multi-material components STELLAR NETCOMPOSITES LTD.

Support action for standardisation in additive manufacturing SASAM TNO

The 3A energy class flexible machine for the new additive and subtractive manufacturing on next generation of

complex 3D metal BOREALIS PRIMA INDUSTRIE SPA

Manufacturing decision and supply chain management system for additive manufacturing MANSYS TWI LIMITED

Table 3. Overview of current standards and their status (July 2017)8

Category General Standards (general concepts, common requirements, generally applicable)

8 Updated list of standards can be consulted at ASTM and ISO web pages: https://www.iso.org/committee/629086.html; https://www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/F42.htm

Sub-category Title Published On-goingProposed

new standard

ISO/ASTM 52900:2015 General principles. Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies x

ISO/ASTM 52921:2013 Standard terminology for additive manufacturing – Coordinate systems and test methodologies x

ISO 17296-2:2015 General Principles. Part 2: Overview of process categories and feedstock x

ISO/ASTM 52901:2017 General Principles. Requirements for purchased AM parts x

WK58234 Additive Manufacturing - Storage of Technical Build Cycle Data * x

ISO 17296-4:2014 General principles. Part 4: Overview of data processing x

WK55610 The characterization of powder flow properties for additive manufacturing applications x

Safety WK59813 Hazard Risk Ranking and Safety Defense x

ISO/ASTM 52910 Guide for Design for Additive Manufacturing x

ISO/ASTM 52910.2 Guidelines for additive manufacturing design x

ISO/ASTM 52915:2016 Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing File Format (AMF) Version 1.2 x

WK48549 New specificationfor AMF support for solid modeling: voxel information, constructive solid geometry representations

and solid texturingx

ASTM F2971-13 Standard practice for reporting data for test specimens prepared by additive manufacturing x

ISO 17296-3: 2014 General Principles. Part 3: Main characteristics and corresponding test methods x

ISO/ASTM NP 52905 Additive manufacturing -- General principles -- Non-destructive testing of additive manufactured products x

Test artefacts ISO/ASTM NP 52902 Additive manufacturing-General Principles-Standard test artifacts x

Terminology

System

performance&

Reliability

Design Guides

Data Formats

Test Methods

Deliverable D3.2

Page 17 of 24

Category AM Standards (specific to material category or process category)

Sub-category Title Published On-goingProposed

new standard

ASTM F3049-14 Standard guide for characterizing properties of metal powders used for additive manufacturing processes xISO/ASTM DIS 52903-1 Additive manufacturing -- Standard specification for material extrusion based additive manufacturing of

plastic materials -- Part 1: Feedstock materialsx

ISO/ASTM AWI 52907 Additive manufacturing -- Technical specifications on metal powders xWK53878 Additive Manufacturing - Material Extrusion Based Additive Manufacturing of Plastic Materials

Part 1: Feedstock materialsx

WK58219 Additive Manufacturing - Creating Feedstock Specifications for Metal Powder Bed Fusion * x

WK58221 Additive manufacturing - Receiving and storing of metal powders used in powder bed fusion * x

WK58222 Additive Manufacturing - Metal Powder Reuse in the Powder Bed Fusion Process * x

WK58224 Additive Manufacturing - Disposal of Metal Powders Used for Powder Bed Fusion * x

ASTM F3091/ F3091M-14 Standard specification for powder bed fusion of plastic materials x

ASTM F3187-16 Standard guide for directed energy deposition of metals xISO/ASTM CD 52903-2 Additive manufacturing -- Standard specification for material extrusion based additive manufacturing

of plastic materials -- Part 2: Process -- Equipmentx

ISO/ASTM CD 52911-1 Additive manufacturing -- Technical design guideline for powder bed fusion

Part 1: Laser-based powder bed fusion of metalsx

ISO/ASTM CD 52911-2 Additive manufacturing -- Technical design guideline for powder bed fusion

Part 2: Laser-based powder bed fusion of polymers x

WK58220 Additive Manufacturing - Specifying Gases and Nitrogen Generators Used with Metal Powder Bed Fusion Machines *

WK58223 Additive Manufacturing - Cleaning Metal Powder Bed Fusion Machines * x

WK58225 Additive Manufacturing - Facility Requirements for Metal Powder Bed Fusion * xWK58226 Additive Manufacturing - Initial Qualification, Operational Qualification and Part Qualification of Metal Powder

Bed Fusion Machines *x

WK58227 Additive Manufacturing - Digital Workflow Control for the Metal Powder Bed Fusion Process * xWK58228 Additive Manufacturing - Establishing Manufacturing Plan and Sequence of Operation Work Flow for Metal Powder

Bed Fusion Part Production *x

WK58230 Additive Manufacturing - Establishing a Personnel Training Program for Metal Powder Bed Fusion Part Production * x

WK58231 Additive Manufacturing - Creating Maintenance Schedules and Maintaining Metal Powder Bed Fusion Machines * x

WK58232 Additive Manufacturing - Calibration of Metal Powder Bed Fusion Machines and Subsystems * x

Feedstock

Materials

Process/

Equipment

Deliverable D3.2

Page 18 of 24

Category Specialized AM Standards (specific to material, process or application)

Sub-category Title Published On-goingProposed

new standard

WK58233 Additive Manufacturing - Post Thermal Processing of Metal Powder Bed Fusion Parts * xASTM F3122-14 Standard guide for evaluating mechanical properties of metal materials made via additive manufacturing

processesx

ISO/ASTM NP 52903-3 Additive Manufacturing -- Standard Specification for Material Extrusion Based Additive Manufacturing

of Plastic Materials -- Part 3: Part 3: Final partsx

WK49229 Orientation and location dependence mechanical properties for metal additive manufacturing x

WK58229 Additive Manufacturing - Metallographic Evaluation of Metal Powder Bed Fusion Test Specimens and Parts * x

ASTM F3055 New specification for additive manufacturing nickel alloy (UNS N07718) with powder bed fusion x

ASTM F3056 Specification for additive manufacturing nickel alloy (UNS N07718) with powder bed fusion x

ASTM F2924-14 Standard specification for additive manufacturing titanium-6 aluminum-4-vanadium with powder bed fusion xASTM F3001-14 Standard specification for additive manufacturing titanium-6 aluminum-4-vanadium eli (extra low interstitial)

with powder bed fusionx

ASTM F-3184-16 Standard specification for additive manufacturing stainless steel alloy (UNS S31603) with powder bed fusion x

WK51329 Additive manufacturing Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy (UNS R30075) with Powder Bed Fusion1 x

WK53423 Additive Manufacturing AlSi10Mg with Powder Bed Fusion x

ISO/NP TR 52612 Design of functionally graded additive manufactured parts x

WK56649 Standards practice/guide for intentionally seeding flaws in additevely manufactured (AM) parts x

WK58240 Additive Manufacturing - Grippers of Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) of Nuclear Power Plants x

Finished parts

Specific

Process-Material

Finished parts/

applications

Deliverable D3.2

Page 19 of 24

4 AM standardization gaps and barriers analysis

This section collects a list of main gaps and barriers based on the previous findings of SASAM

and FoFAM projects, as well as the roadmap of additive manufacturing published by America

Makes & ANSI Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative (AMSC) last February 2017.9

The list is divided into the following topics corresponding to different segments of the AM-

motion value chain:

- Modelling&Design,

- Materials

- Process (including equipment and post-processing)

- Product (including testing).

In addition, a general category and a sectorial analysis have been considered specifically for

the medical and aerospace industry. This list of gaps will be used to define priority and the actions

to tackle them to be discussed on expert sessions and included on AM roadmap (WP5) to be

developed in 2018.

Table 4. Summary table of standardization gaps

General

9 AMSC Standardization Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing

Gap Name Description

Increased industry engagement on standards development

To accelerate AM market take up, industry should be further engage in

CEN, ASTM and ISO standars develpment. Possible barriers concerning

time and money to follow this activity should be minimized.

Decision support: additive vs. substractive

A guidelines or a ISO/PAS publicly available specification would be useful

for helping users understand the advantages/disadvantages of AM

processes vs. traditional manufacturing processes while also providing

decision criteria so informed design/manufacturing decision can be made.

Machine operator training and qualificationIt is required to develop AM operator training and qualification standards or

guidelines.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 20 of 24

Design

Materials

Gap Name Description

Process-specific design guidelines

The design guideline for PBF is currently the sole process-specific design

guideline available. There is development work in the pipeline to push to other

process specific design guidelines, taking into account that ASTM and ISO

identify 7 types of AM processes. Application-specific design guidelines for

Medical Application is on-going as part of ISO/TC261/JG70.

Application-specific design guidelines

As industry fields mature in particular AM applications, best practices should be

recorded. For example, design for assembly, for printed electronics, for medical,

etc.

Design guide for surface finish post-processing

AM is challenged with meeting the surface finish requirements of many fatigue

critical parts. Many third party surface enhancement processes (such as micro-

machining, Isotropic Super Finishing, Drag Finishing, and laser micromachining)

have been used to bring the finish to an acceptable level. A design guide is

required to provide a means to design for these third party finishing enhancement

techniques.

Design and manufacturing process feasibility

Since different AM processes have different design requirements, manufacturing

requirements, and manufacturing capabilities (e.g., overhang angles, minimum

member thickness, minimum hole diameter, etc.), it is often challenging to

determine if a design is feasible for a given AM process. A standard for reporting

machine inputs and capabilities is needed to enable design tools to determine

manufacturing feasibility.

AM simulation

AM process simulation tools are becoming an important aspect of the AM design

process by enabling the designer to understand and mitigate residual stress and

process dependent deformation. A standard is needed to enable verification and

validation of applicable process simulation tools.

Design documentation

In most cases, upon completion of an engineering design, there will be a

requirement to completely document it. AM offers the capability to create new

designs that were never conceived of before. Consequently, new standards are

required to assist in the documentation of these designs. They should cover

aspects such as content of a technical data package, new dimensioning and

tolerancing requirements, definitive standard AM file format, terminology,

documentation for in-process monitoring, ducumentation for new functional

surface features, specification to procure parts from third parties, etc.

Design verification and validation

The verification and subsequent validation of a design are important steps to

ensure it fulfills its goals and application. In this sense, standardization gaps have

been identified regarding methods of configuration and version control as well as

the measurement of AM features such as complex shapes or internal features.

Gap Name Description

Precursor material properties

Precursor material requirements differ, even within one materials family,

from one AM equipment manufacturer or application to another. While a

large body of work pertaining to standard test methods is being carried out

globally, more work is needed to address the variation in AM precursor

materials. Standards and criteria are required for assesing the following

precursor materials' parameters and link them with the AM process:

flowability, spreadability, particle size/particle size distribution, particle

morphology, presence of hollow particles, etc.

Powder specificationsThere is a need to develop AM process-specific powder specifications to

facilitate procurement of metal powders for use in AM machines.

Storage of materials Guidance on storage of AM materials is needed.

Recycling powder

A standard is needed for the re-use of material that was already printed, as

well as for the material that was not printed but is already within the system.

Guideliness for sieving reused powder prior to mixing should be also

created.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 21 of 24

Process

Product

Gap Name Description

Machine calibration and preventive maintenanceTherea are no known industry standards addressing machine calibration

and preventive maintenance.

Machine health monitoring

Therea are no known industry standards addressing AM machine health

monitoring (observing the machinery to identify changes that may indicate a

fault.

Parameter control

Standards are needed to identify requirements for demonstrating that a set

of process parameters produces an acceptable part, and for ensuring that

those process parameters remain consistent from build to build.

Adverse machine environmental conditions:

effect on component quality

There is a need for developing standards and specifications to address

external environmental factors that could negatively impact component

quality.

Environmental Health and Safety (EHS)There is a need for standards to address EHS in the AM process and teh

protection of machine operators.

Cybersecurity Best practices to protect digital files used in the AM process are required.

Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP)The existing HIP standards do not fully address AM material-related issues.

Process monitoring

No standards have been identified to address process monitoring.

Standards should account for motion control components that guide

measurement and remediation of error in positioning syetms where

possible in AM machines.

Standard protocols for round robin testing

AM materials, equipment and process need to be qualified to repeatedly

produce

high-quality parts. The availability of several types of processes, machines

and materials complicates this action. These protocols are needed to

enable independent testing of processes and equipment and to establish

trust on the technology.

Gap Name Context

Mechanical properties

It is neccesary to develop standards that identify the means to establish

minimum mechanical properties for a specific material made by a given AM

system using a given set of AM parameters for a given AM build design.

MicrostructureA standard for characterization and acceptance criteria of AM

microstructures should be developed.

Dimensional metrology of internal featuresStandards are needed for the dimensional measurement of internal features

of AM objects.

Coupon testing

For a given application there is not a clear method or best practice

document to help determine teh applicability and validity of coupon testing to

a specific type of component or feature.

Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methodsThere is a need for standard test methods to accept/reject AM parts in the

basis of nondestructive methods.

Terminology for the identification of AM flaws

detectable by nondestructive evaluation

The development of standardized terminology to identify and describe flaws

is required.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 22 of 24

Sectorial gaps10

5 Acknowledgments

AM-motion consortium gratefully acknowledges the support of the Experts Dr. Klas Bovie (Senior Researcher at Sintef and member of ISO TC 261), Renato Ottone (Senior Researcher at ISONORM and member of ISO/TC 39 and UNI) and Eric Baustert (R&D Manager at VOLUM-e and chairman of the European Standardization Committee CEN TC 438), who have reviewed this report and made valuable suggestions and contributions during its preparation.

10 AM for the medical industry is now being developed and will be undertaken by ISO TC261/JG70.

Gap Name Description

Medical industry: Importing ultrasound dataThe DICOM standard should be more widely promoted and potentially

revised to enable data to be imported from any ultrasound equipment.

Medical Industry: Cleanliness and sterealization of medical AM

parts

There are no standardized protocols or acceptance criteria to reproducibly

measure and evaluate the cleanliness of a part with relevant, risk-based

acceptance criteria. On the other hand, anatomical models may require

sterilization if they are to come in contact with compromised tissue of

patients. A guidance in this area is required.

Medical Industry: Personnel training for image data processing

Currently, there are only limited qualification or certification programs

available for training personnel who are handling imaging data and

preparing for AM printing.

Medical Industry: Verification of 3D model

There are currently no standards for the verification of the 3D model against

the initial data before its approval for AM for the intended purpose (eg.

surgical planning, implant, cutting guides, etc).

Medical Industry: Resorbable materialsIt is neccesary to develop guidance on how to test the degradation of

resorbable polymers to support material selection for AM.

Aerospace Industry: Application of standards for aerospace

requirements

It is needed to show to the certification bodies that AM technical and

industrial base could be in line with normal practices in the sector.

Standards are required to develop a clear route to acceptance.

Deliverable D3.2

Page 23 of 24

6 Annex 1

Table 5. ISO/TC 261 Structure. Working Groups

Reference Title

ISO/TC 261/AG 1 Coordination group

ISO/TC 261/AHG 3 Monitoring of data representation standards

ISO/TC 261/AHG 5 Content for ISO/TC 261 homepage

ISO/TC 261/CAG Chairman's advisory group

ISO/TC 261/JAG ISO/TC 261 - ASTM F42 Steering group on JG activities

ISO/TC 261/JG 51 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Terminology

ISO/TC 261/JG 52 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Standard test artifacts

ISO/TC 261/JG 55 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Standard Specification for Extrusion Based Additive Manufacturing of Plastic Materials

ISO/TC 261/JG 56 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Standard Practice for Metal Powder Bed Fusion to Meet Rigid Quality Requirements

ISO/TC 261/JG 57 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Specific design guidelines on powder bed fusion

ISO/TC 261/JG 58 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Qualification, quality assurance and post processing of powder bed fusion metallic parts

ISO/TC 261/JG 59 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: NDT for AM parts

ISO/TC 261/JG 60 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Guide for intentionally seeding flaws in additively manufactured (AM) parts

ISO/TC 261/JG 61 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Guide for anisotropy effects in mechanical properties of AM part

ISO/TC 261/JG 62 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Guide for conducting round robin studies for additive manufacturing

ISO/TC 261/JG 63 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Test methods for characterization of powder flow properties for AM applications

ISO/TC 261/JG 64 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Solid modelling support

ISO/TC 261/JG 66 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Technical specification on metal powders

ISO/TC 261/JG 67 Technical report for the design of functionally graded additive manufactured parts

ISO/TC 261/JG 69 Joint ISO/TC 261-ASTM F 42 Group: EH&S for use of metallic materials

ISO/TC 261/JWG 5 Joint ISO/TC 261 - ISO/TC 44/SC 14 WG: Additive manufacturing in aerospace applications

ISO/TC 261/WG 1 Terminology

ISO/TC 261/WG 2 Processes, systems and materials

ISO/TC 261/WG 3 Test methods and quality specifications

ISO/TC 261/WG 4 Data and Design

ISO/TC 261/WG 6 Environment, health and safety

Deliverable D3.2

Page 24 of 24

Table 6. Liaison Committees from ISO/TC 261

ISO/TC 261 can access the documents of the committees below:

Reference Title ISO/IEC

IEC/TC 76 Optical radiation safety and laser equipment IEC

ISO/IEC JTC 1 Information technology ISO/IEC

ISO/TC 44 Welding and allied processes ISO

ISO/TC 44/SC 5 Testing and inspection of welds ISO

ISO/TC 44/SC 14 Welding and brazing in aerospace ISO

ISO/TC 61 Plastics ISO

ISO/TC 61/SC 9 Thermoplastic materials ISO

ISO/TC 119 Powder metallurgy ISO

ISO/TC 135 Non-destructive testing ISO

ISO/TC 150 Implants for surgery ISO

ISO/TC 156 Corrosion of metals and alloys ISO

ISO/TC 184 Automation systems and integration ISO

ISO/TC 213

Dimensional and geometrical product specifications and verification

ISO

ISO/TC 292 Security and resilience ISO

Table 7. Liaison Committees to ISO/TC 261

The committees below can access the documents of ISO/TC 261:

Reference Title ISO/IEC

IEC/TC 76 Optical radiation safety and laser equipment IEC

ISO/IEC JTC 1 Information technology ISO/IEC

ISO/TC 39 Machine tools ISO

ISO/TC 44 Welding and allied processes ISO

ISO/TC 44/SC 14 Welding and brazing in aerospace ISO

ISO/TC 119 Powder metallurgy ISO

ISO/TC 150 Implants for surgery ISO

ISO/TC 150/SC 1 Materials ISO

ISO/TC 184/SC 1 Physical device control ISO

ISO/TC 184/SC 4 Industrial data ISO

ISO/TC 292 Security and resilience ISO